Proudly sponsored by

LabourList Podcast -Listen now

Tags:

With a humiliating u-turn on the aircraft carrier programme completed, Philip Hammond took the brave step of claiming the Defence budget is balanced over the next ten years. The triumphalism was predictably cheered on his own benches. His problem, however, is that not even they are convinced, since ministers’ mistakes have eroded confidence in their handling of defence.

Let’s remember the time-consuming and expensive aircraft carrier debacle. Ministers have reverted to purchasing the fast jets earmarked by the previous Labour Government after deriding our plans as a ‘mistake’. Hammond’s sole argument is that the facts have changed, but in truth he has changed his mind after examining the facts.

The Public Accounts Committee warned of the rising cost of the Government’s policy. The National Audit Office warned that the Government had an ‘immature understanding’ of costs. The Defence Select Committee warned against strategic shrinkage. Ministers failed to heed these multiple warnings.

It was the Prime Minister himself who referred to the previous Labour Government’s decision as an ‘error’. This certainly wasn’t the first time that he over-reached himself. His claim that the rushed defence review would allow Britain to maintain ‘full-spectrum capability’ was subsequently derided by the Defence Select Committee.

Incompetence and hubris characterise the Government’s carrier policy, and still we don’t know how much this u-turn has squandered. At various points, the MoD has claimed the cost to be £37 million, £50 million and £100 million. Other estimates have put the cost as high as £258 million. British taxpayers and the men and women of our Armed Forces deserve better. In hard times such as these, it is absolutely essential the Government publish the exact total in full.

This shambles is compounded by the needless scrapping of the Harrier fleet in the defence review. They were sold to the Americans for a fraction of their value, shedding essential skills and expertise which will now need to be replaced. This decision also means that Britain, a proud maritime nation, will be without aircraft on our aircraft carriers—an important capability gap—for a decade. You don’t have to be an expert military strategist to understand that if our aircraft carriers have no aircraft on them, then something has gone seriously wrong.

Government ministers have nobody to blame but themselves. The Prime Minister’s decisions have cost British time, money, talent and prestige and he must accept responsibility for this.

The biggest political cost to the Government, however, will be that it is no longer trusted on Defence. The carrier u-turn is not just another chapter in the ongoing ‘omnishambles’, but will also mark a watershed in the public’s trust in the Government’s handling of Defence policy.

It is no wonder, then, that the reaction to the Defence Secretary’s claim to have balanced the budget was to reach for the bucket of salt. He is repeating what his predecessor claimed, only before he was forced to admit he got his figures wrong and announce another wave of Army cuts. We will judge this not on these reheated claims but on the detail.

Already many questions abound. These plans are built on the assumption of a 1% rise in equipment spending over the next ten years which is not guaranteed. They only refer to the Defence Equipment budget, which is 45% of the overall MoD budget, leaving 55% of an annual £35bn budget unaccounted for a decade. The statement was also based on the claim that Ministers have overcome the problems of cost and time over-runs on equipment programmes despite failing to make any meaningful reforms to defence procurement. The Defence Secretary has said he will publish the full equipment programme to prove his claims, but cannot say when; he boasts about a plan for transparency that remains hidden.

Moreover, the Defence Secretary has based his actions—which include 30,000 redundancies, cuts to frontline allowances and cuts to equipment—on his claim the Government inherited a £38 billion budget deficit. The Defence Select Committee, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and Professor Malcolm Chalmers have all described this as unverifiable. The Government has yet to publish how it arrived at this figure, and until it does, cannot credibly claim a sound grasp on the Ministry of Defence budget.

People are routinely asked to take the Government’s word that its figures are correct, but following ministers’ chaotic handling of the strategically vital aircraft carrier programme it is not surprising many are so sceptical. With this Government’s creditability on Defence at a new low we will need to see hard, un-spun figures before we are convinced of the merits of Philip Hammond’s claims.

Labour’s combination of malicious negligence and abject incompetence on Defence when in government pretty much disqualifies them from pontificating on the subject for the next ten year or so.

treborc1

We all know the Mod and the aircraft carriers, the helicopters which laid up for3 years because we did not have the means of running the aircraft due in part to different computers systems to also not having the trained pilots, to going to war without the correct equipment to people dying because they had to return body Armour.

The simple fact of this our harriers would have been able to have done the tasks, but nope we had to buy American, I suspect new labour did deals and the Tories have done more deals.

Lets hope somebody has a brain wave about our Military because when politicians make mistakes people die

Latest

In 1963 JFK prepared (but never got to deliver) a speech attacking ‘voices preaching doctrines which apparently assume that … vituperation is as good as victory.’ Reading that last phrase recently I knew immediately what he meant. Years ago, after the 1980 local elections in the wake of Thatcher’s victory, there was a view in some quarters that, even when we won control locally, we should remain in opposition to ‘teach the electorate a lesson’. The idea was that if […]

Reading an article on ConservativeHome provided a clear demonstration of how the Conservatives have embraced technology and have left Labour behind. Without a clear signal of intent and without significant investment in tech, the Party will be hobbled at future elections. Fundamentally, the Party does not appear to have the level of information and detail required about its own members, let alone its voters and potential voters. Without this it cannot motivate anyone. The ability to tailor a pitch, an […]

Jeremy Corbyn has said he would welcome “great talents” from all parts of the Labour party – including the Blairite wing – into his shadow cabinet if he becomes leader. In an interview with the Observer, the MP for Islington North says that he wants to have a “big tent”, including so-called Blairites and Brownites in his team. “Of course there are differences of opinion and I have to be big enough to accommodate those differences of opinion and I […]

Neil Kinnock has endorsed Andy Burnham to be Labour’s next leader. The former Labour leader has written an article in the Guardian in which he argues that Burnham has “the radical values” “the experience as a campaigner and a cabinet minister” and “the credible policies” to be Labour leader. In a veiled jibe directed at Jeremy Corbyn, Kinnock also tells Labour members and supporters that the party “are not choosing the chair of a discussion group who can preside over […]

What can the much-derided Blue Labour offer the party? It is a question worth asking, because the leadership contest has so far largely eschewed big ideas. Surely, losing so badly in England and being flat-out destroyed in Scotland calls for a thorough reckoning with the party’s downward trajectory from 2005 to the present – a soul-searching process which asks: what is Labour now for? Jeremy Corbyn is excelling and inspiring partly because he is the only candidate with a clear […]